Hormesis and toxic torts

Thayer et al. Fundamental flaws of hormesis for public health decisions. Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113(10).

But, c.f., for example. Cook Calabrese. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114(11). (Responding to Thayer et al.).

See also, for example. Thayer et al. Hormesis: a new religion?. Environ Health Perspect 2006 (Reply to Dr. Calabrese's Response).

Myers. Hormesis is a flawed theory. Environ Sci Technol 2006.

Belle certainly seems to be addressing the `peer review publication' element of Daubert.

Calabrese E. Precautionary principle and hormesis. Belle Newsletter 2004; 12(2): 5.

For example Wood v. Gutierrez, 2006 WL 2935253 at *6 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2006) (reasonable degree of medical certainty means greater than 50%); Silica Products Liability Litigation, 398 F. Supp.2d 563, 604 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (same); Kellan v. Board of Trustees, 551N.E.2d 264, 267 (Ill. 2005) (same); Hunter v. Harvil, 1999 WL 318065 at *2 (Ark. App. 1999); Robinson v. Group Health Association, 691 A.2d 1147, 1150 (D.C. App. 1997).

GAO, Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, `actions are needed to improve the effectiveness of EPA's chemical review program,' Statement of John B. Stephenson, GAO-06-1032T (2 August 2006) `... EPA has used its authorities to require testing of fewer than 200 of the 62 000 chemicals in commerce when EPA began reviewing chemicals under TSCA in 1979... Since Congress enacted TSCA in 1976, EPA has issued regulations to ban or limit the production of only five existing chemicals or groups of chemicals.'); see also, for example. Myers. `Hormesis is a flawed theory', supra. (`the notion that widespread observations of hormetic responses justifies weakening health standards is naïve and wrong. Calabrese is right that current regulations should recognize the ubiquity of non-monotonic dose response system. But the appropriate response to this observation is not to weaken standards but to strengthen them, because the adverse impacts of low dose stimulation of gene expressions can't be predicted by today's regulatory testing.').

See, for example. CDC. Third national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. 2005.

National Geographic. The chemicals within us. 2006; 210(4): 116.